New Mars Forums

Actually, the Allen Telescope Array will hopefuly answer the question of whether or not we have neighbours emitting TV signals in under ten years... After all, it can do all the work SETI has done until now in under two weeks!

Just a problem if we assume a technological evolution parallel to our own: our detectability in the radio specturm is going to dissapear as we move from analog tv emission to digital, since the signal uses much less energy. Therefore, any species more advanced and efficient than us or less developed is either invisible or very hard to pick up in the radio sectrum.

The thing is we're just listening. If everybody else were doing the same, there's no way we would detect each other, unless we develop analog tv emissions (wich are the only thing that we have emitted succeptible of being picked up at a reasonable distance) at the exact time (lightspeed lag taken into account).

Rune. The probability that we are the only sentient race ever to be evolved in a universe so vast is so small as to be negligible.

That's the point: learning how to do it, because it may be very useful for pretty much everything else in the solar system, don't you think?

Rune. Every succesful life-form expands to new environments if the opportunity arises.

Actually, I think this quind of mission is really important in the long run. When you think of expanding human presence in the solar system, asteroids, especially near earth, offer some cool benefits, as many people has pointed out: the could be turned into supply depots for fuel produced in-situ, need almost no delta-V to reach or leave since they have no gravity well, and with the sufficiently advanced tech, you could turn them into shipyards, taking ALL of the cost of further exploration and colonization away from earth (well, most of it anyway, you get my meaning).

I really think that the establishment of some quind of colony/station in an asteroid using ISRU for almost-autonomous operation is the key to colonizing the rest of the solar sytem. If nothing else, it would drastically reduce the effect of earth's gravity well on costs. Of course, the Moon might do the trick just as well AND give you a nice sense of direction with its weak G (useful for contructing or living to an unknown exent), but if you can mine an asteroid and make it habitable, you can mine them all, and that's a lot of asteroids...

Of course, many stuff has to happen until we get there, but I think it's at least as feasible as a moon colony and way more than a mars colony, and both are getting serious discussion. Why no go to the belt and forget about the big gravity wells at all?

Rune. And here come Niven's "Belters".

Just one little problem that makes the question moot. How many people could you lift a day from a single space elevator? Say 500 in ten rides of 50 for argument's sake. How many total space elevators can you build? Say you have 100 (that sucker's gotta cost). That gets you 50.000 humans in orbit every day. Don't forget that you still have to send them somewhere. How many people are born every day? For a population of 10 billion that doubles every 25 years, 10*10e9/(25*365)=1.095.890 new "passenegers" every day.

So, even with the bigggest conveyor belt you can think of, it doesn't look feasible. We're still going to have to solve mother earth's problems before or while we go out there.

Rune. "It's a retort to protonatalists and other sweet and dangerous people that think there's any way of dealing with the world's problems that doesn't involve natality control" Frederick Phol, about "The time machine of Phineas Snodgrass". Nice read, by the way.

Yeah, you're right, it probably wouldn't be a good system for rutinary access to space. This launch system would probaly only work for limited launches and extremely large cargoes. However, as a one-time-only first launch of materials for orbital construction, its unbeatable. Such as in, say, the first launch for construcion materials for a new colony, in mars or in the moon, or extremely large proyects like the space elevator.

Think of it as a method for using once a decade, at most. Besides, fuel may be expensive, but considering the payload capacity, it may be economical. As for landing, I'm not sure, but I'd guess the same way you lifted off: in a big bang and with style. Depending on the frecuency of blasts and the kind of shock absorbers the pusher plate is connected to, the ship may survive undamaged a powered touchdown.

However, I agree completely about the launch/landing site. You would want it remote, and you wouldn't want to hang around after a take-off or touchdown.

Rune. What can be more macho than to ride a nuke?

Hi everyone, new guy here, beware!
Seems to me that meteors are low-probabilty issue, but they could be deflected/destroyed by an orbital laser system. Wich, by the way, could double as a "cleaning tool" for space debris and orbital garbage. Such system would need probably several powerful lasers, orbiting almost surely, and incredibly good radar and tracking systems, not to mention its potential weapon capabilities and probable prohibitive cost, but who knows? Maybe one day it will be necessary to have it to "clean up" the place anyway.

Rune. The strangest things have been built.

I signed up two pages ago (great forum, by the way) in the hope of being the first to point out this certainly "unconventional" method. Bad luck, I guess, someone out there is always faster... Anyhow, international treaties against nuclear testing aside, this is certainly feasible, using 70's technology at most. Of course, "clean nukes" (designed for a more fusion-like and less radioactive blast) would be desirable, and I´m not sure when those were developed, or how little fallout they produce.

It also certainly overpowered, since even a single trip to mars surface and return was proposed in the original study. And with the theorical capaticy to lift a city (thousands or millions of tons in the largest studied proposals) to orbit in one launch, it could be tho only feasible way of building large-scale projects (how to get all the thousands of kms of cable for a space elevator into orbit?). Me, I´m just happy with getting something the size of a colony, for example, out in a single Big-Dumb launch. Let's not forget that with that much power to spare, you could greatly increase safety sactors, reduce engeneering requirements, and use heavier materials for craft and cargo alike.

What can I say, if somebody asked me the fastest, cheapest way to go to space, I'd have to say nukes and agree with Antius. There's plenty of them around anyway...

P.S: Non-english speaker, so hope there aren't too many mistakes.

Rune. I liked the old Orion better.